Well, I can’t answer that last one. Maybe you’re mentally ill. Maybe you’re preparing your own article entitled “Why are internet articles getting longer?”. Lauren’s superb Guillermo del Toro article (which you really should have read by now) runs for six pages – six pages!
Anyway, I digress.
At first, I thought that maybe it could have something to do with digital vs. analogue. Digital is now the industry standard, and digital projectors are the norm across cinemas up and down the land. At a basic, physical level, this means that distribution and shipping costs are vastly reduced. Compare the cost of making a reel of film, which can be thousands of dollars each (only to be used for one), to the cost of a re-usable hard drive costing only a few hundred dollars. Sure, digital projectors may not last as long as film, but when the working costs to the industry are much lower, the expense of the more frequent replacement of projectors can be offset against that.
That’s just the end result, not even accounting for the increased speed of working with digital – less time scanning prints, workable rushes available on the day of shooting, infinite takes, infinite shot length, all for a slight degradation in image quality – a degradation that won’t be noticeable in a few years, when we’ve all forgotten what film used to “look like.” Pops and grains will be confined to the vinegar-smelling cannisters of the past.
I thought this might be the reason because of David Lynch’s film Inland Empire. His films were never short, but this film – his very first digital feature – ran for a staggering 180 minutes. He shot it with a Sony DSR-PD150, an entry level (at the time) DV camcorder mostly for roving news footage. After shooting Inland Empire in digital, he announced that he would never work with film again. Technically, he has stuck to his word, given that he hasn’t made a film since – just rubbish music and some yoga bullshit. What a loss.
Another factor is that Zero Dark Thirty was shot digitally, with the Arri Alexa camera. The film’s cinematographer, Greig Fraser, said in an interview that “…we looked at the two comparisons and thought what’s better for the film, ultimately? What’s better for the film is that we have freedom and the ability to do what we want when we want.” And save money in the process, which we’ll come to shortly.
Although I’m sure it contributes, it can’t just be the digital thing. Django Unchained, Les Misérables and Lincoln were all shot on 35mm, even though they would have still been edited and distributed digitally. So digital can’t be the only factor, but it does tie into something else sort-of covered earlier on – money.
Continue reading on next page…
